Pinpoint · Judgment search

Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 3)

[2009] FCA 1069

Federal Court of Australia · 22 September 2009 · Official judgment

Cited by 4 indexed judgments

All Cited 4

2010: 1 citing judgment 2012: 1 citing judgment 2015: 1 citing judgment 2016: 1 citing judgment 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Apotex Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 901 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 2× · judgment
  2. Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v Generic Health Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1510 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 14× · judgment
  3. Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 5) [2015] FCA 334 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 4× · judgment
  4. Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 27 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 127× · judgment

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Built upon

Later cases citing this one, in order of decision, and the cases citing them in turn. The most cited are shown at each level.

Authorities cited (2)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical Care South East Asia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 407 Cited cited 5×
  2. Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier (No 2) [2009] FCA 1019 Cited cited 12×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.